GOAL asks Governor to correct EOPS on Large Cap Mags.

[Mikel131]

GOAL Asks Governor Patrick To Set Record Straight on Magazine Capacity Regs

GOAL asks Governor to correct EOPS on Large Cap Mags.

3/22/13

I hope this isn’t just giving Mass. one more thing to fix.

GOAL Asks Governor Patrick for EOPS Oversight.
Gun Owners' Action League has contacted the office of Governor Deval Patrick today via formal letter asking that he correct recent erroneous statements made by the state of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPS).

 

[JJ4]

Bureaucrats interpreting and promulgating laws. Awesome.

There are certain functions of government, where laws are specifically written to allow agencies to make regulations. For example, there's no need to make a law regarding the speed limit on every stretch of road. The law delegates that authority.

The power to otherwise interpret statutes in general is NOT delegated. ****in ridiculous.

 

[ntomsw]

.

 

[Reptile]

I expect to hear a herd of angry crickets on this one.

Glad GOAL brought it up. I just wish I can comprehend all the legal gibberish in the law.

Can somebody explain why GOAL thinks it IS legal?

I read the newsletter but I don't fully understand the argument.

 

[TY43215]

The most important part of the argument is this:

The second concern is that an agency is claiming to have the authority to interpret law. It is our understanding that interpretations of law are the purview of the Massachusetts Attorney General or the Courts of the Commonwealth. If there could be any argument made regarding the authority to promulgate regulations, there certainly could be none made for inserting language that simply does not exist.

EOPSS has taken it upon themselves to now interpret meaning of a law which they are not qualified to do and not authorized by law to do. Kinda like the receptionist at the Doctor's office diagnosing your illness.

 

[WallHack]

Goal argues, and the law states, that lawfully (not stolen) possessed mags that were created before the ban in 94 are legal in MA.

The state is trying to say you would have needed to own the mags in MA prior to 1994 for them to be legal.

And in this upside down cluster**** state, I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up on trial for an AWB violation and the onus was put on YOU to prove they were in MA in '94. Even though the old federal law was the other way around.

Let's just end this AWB nonsense. Seriously. After Cadillac leaves, let's elect someone with even a modicum of common sense.

I must be slacking at work, because this was sent using Tapatalk

 

[FalArAk]

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

 

[Apathesis]

We need to get rid of the Consumer Protection Regulations as well. 'MA Compliant' is bullshit.

 

[rcwhat]

We need to get rid of the Consumer Protection Regulations as well. 'MA Compliant' is bullshit.

+1, I think every FFL in MA should join forces and start a class action suit against the AG

 

[Horrible]

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

How so? Didn't he already propose a law that banned ALL 10+ round mags and made mags that hold 8-10 rds the new pre-ban (like NY)?

I don't think GOAL woke up a sleeping giant if that is what you are inferring. That giant has never slept in this state and the events on 12/14/12 have only given it a huge shot of caffeine.

 

[jasons]

Bureaucrats interpreting and promulgating laws.

To the gleeful delight of sycophants everywhere, including some here on this very site. Nothing infuriates me more.

 

[TomH]

The state is trying to say you would have needed to own the mags in MA prior to 1994 for them to be legal.

The state could never prove such a thing with certainty.

 

[hankster]

+1, I think every FFL in MA should join forces and start a class action suit against the AG

I think every gun owner in Ma. should. Who wants to start?

 

[jasons]

The state could never prove such a thing with certainty.

Sure they could. Some people weren't old enough to own them or didn't live in MA on that specific date. Eventually everyone "legal" under their bullshit interpretation will be dead or moved out. Brilliant.

 

[egouin]

Man, I wish we could just attack these unconstitutional laws lock, stock, and barrel. Instead of attacking vagueness, attach the entire GD law. Am I just naive, or has no one taken these absurd (and did I mention Unconstitutional) MA laws to the highest court in the land?

 

[PaulD]

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

Patrick already has. His bill H.47 outlaws pre-ban mags.

I'm disappointed that gun owners don't realize this.

 

[Jbarila]

Ok with what 300000 licensed gun owners in Mass why are only 15000 GOAL members? Numbers is what Bureaucrats understand.

 

[edhead35]

Ok with what 300000 licensed gun owners in Mass why are only 15000 GOAL members? Numbers is what Bureaucrats understand.

Because many feel like it is a lost cause, are too cheap, or it isn't important enough as an issue.

 

[center442]

.

 

[glide]

So GOAL sent another letter that's going to be thrown directly in the trash?

Ever follow up on that E-FA10 business?

 

[JJ4]

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

What exactly are you worried that Patrick might "reconsider"? He's already proposing legislation with 7-round magazine limits and other stuff that are on the same level as Linsky's proposals. Patrick doesn't have the power to "interpret" laws any more than EOPSS does.


Edit: Two people beat me to the same reply.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Goal argues, and the law states, that lawfully (not stolen) possessed mags that were created before the ban in 94 are legal in MA.

The state is trying to say you would have needed to own the mags in MA prior to 1994 for them to be legal.

Correct and EOPS is staunching defending that position.

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

As others stated, Patrick wants to make almost all current mags illegal anyway. He'll "round file" the letter from GOAL, but I don't fault GOAL for trying.

What exactly are you worried that Patrick might "reconsider"? He's already proposing legislation with 7-round magazine limits and other stuff that are on the same level as Linsky's proposals. Patrick doesn't have the power to "interpret" laws any more than EOPSS does.

True, but since Patrick appoints the Secretary of Public Safety (boss of EOPS), he COULD (but won't) tell them to knock it off or he could replace the current Secretary of Public Safety (and thus the current EOPS legal team) if they don't. It's just that their "edict" falls in line with Patrick's wishes to add FUD to the laws (MANY believe the EOPS interpretation) and the hopes that someone will be unfairly persecuted with said interpretation and plea bargain out to become a PP and we thus lose more lawful gun owners.

 

[PaulD]

So what legal weight does the EOPS' opinion carry?

 

[jasons]

So what legal weight does the EOPS' opinion carry?

How dare you question the salty goodness of an EOPS interpretation!

 

[Len-2A Training]

So what legal weight does the EOPS' opinion carry?

They are trying to convince police to arrest and DAs to prosecute.

I don't know their "success rate" but they are vehemently pushing that agenda.

 

[dcmdon]

Pandoras box,GOAL want's to open it apparently.

I hope GOAL doing this doesn't make Patrick reconsider the whole pre-94 thing...

I agree. This is not the time to bring this up. After the legislative session is done, is the right time.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The issue has been out there in the unsigned, undated memo from EOPS since May 2011 (copy on goal.org), so this is nothing new. I'm not sure why GOAL is raising the issue now. They did raise the issue of the prior memo and got no response/resolution. I hope they don't expect any response this time either.

 

[RandomBS]

The issue has been out there in the unsigned, undated memo from EOPS since May 2011 (copy on goal.org), so this is nothing new. I'm not sure why GOAL is raising the issue now. They did raise the issue of the prior memo and got no response/resolution. I hope they don't expect any response this time either.

Since the memo was released, do you know of anyone who was even charged for having an illegal magazine that was in fact preban?

 

[glide]

They are trying to convince police to arrest and DAs to prosecute.

I don't know their "success rate" but they are vehemently pushing that agenda.

I will gladly be the volunteer to walk up to their front door waiving a 30 round per-ban mag in their faces.
The payout from the lawsuit would be totally worth it to me.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Since the memo was released, do you know of anyone who was even charged for having an illegal magazine that was in fact preban?

No, but I don't follow court cases and there is no central computerized database (accessible to mere mortals) of District Court cases. So it could have happened, and unless you were aware of it from some other source, we'd never know about it.